{
  "id": 5174471,
  "name": "Edward Shields et al. v. John Brown",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shields v. Brown",
  "decision_date": "1896-05-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "259",
  "last_page": "261",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "64 Ill. App. 259"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. App. 289",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5170966
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/63/0289-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 439",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        869019
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/62/0439-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 437",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        869034
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/62/0437-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill. App. 250",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5162744
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/61/0250-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 Ill. 47",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3123609
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/161/0047-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 Ill. 582",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3127478
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/160/0582-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "137 Ill. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5440519
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/137/0360-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill. 111",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        428195
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/38/0111-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 228,
    "char_count": 2648,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.523,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.009163849568573e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9543811241504814
    },
    "sha256": "66d9c8c95128555d76861fcf113846cdff62f39454cc54d8504a5547d927b622",
    "simhash": "1:6ade42b4d4ae942c",
    "word_count": 464
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:36.948645+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Edward Shields et al. v. John Brown."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Shepard\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe merits of this appeal are presented to us upon an abstract, the whole of which, omitting the title to the cause and the name of appellants\u2019 attorney, is as follows;\n\" Abstract of Record,\nPage of Eecord.\n1 Placita,\n2 Bond.\n3-6 Petition for certiorari.\n8-13 Transcript of justice.\n14 Order of court quashing writ of certiorari on\nmotion' of plaintiff.\n15 Stipulation.\n17 Bill of exceptions.\n19 Appeal bond to Appellate Court.\n21 Certificate of clerk.\n23 Assignment of errors.\n1st. The court erred in quashing the writ.\n2d. The court erred in finding in favor of plaintiff on motion to quash.\n3d. The court erred in not finding in favor of defendants.\n4th. The court erred in sustaining the motion to quash.\n5th. The court erred in not overruling motion quashed.\u201d\nThe practice is thoroughly settled that no cause can be reversed upon such an abstract. It is not a compliance with the rules of the court, and utterly fails to intelligibly present any portion of the record upon which error is claimed. An abstract must, as against the appellant, be sufficiently full to present all errors upon which he relies. Everything on which error is assigned must appear in the abstract.\nFor the authorities, we refer to Johnson v. Bantock, 38 Ill. 111; C., P. & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Wolf, 137 Ill. 360; Strohm v. People, 160 Ill. 582; City Electric Co. v. Jones, 161 Ill. 47; Poppers v. Perkins, 61 Ill. App. 250; South Side R. T. R. R. Co. v. Lackman, 62 Ill. App. 437; Farson v. Hutchins, 62 Ill. App. 439, and Schmidt v. Devine, 63 Ill. App. 289.\nIn his brief the appellant argues :\n\u201cThe petition contains all the requirements of the statute. * * *\n\u201c The matters set out in the petition in this cause amount to a valid, legal and binding obligation entered into by the parties litigant based upon a sufficient consideration.\u201d\nAnd yet, as we have seen, he does not furnish in his abstract a word of the petition, nor does he do so in Ms brief. This illustrates more fully than any argument could do, the defectiveness of the abstract.\nFor want of a sufficient abstract, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Shepard"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jas. C. Cooney, attorney for appellants.",
      "Simeon Armstrong, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Edward Shields et al. v. John Brown.\n1. Appellate Court Practice,\u2014An abstract must, as against the appellant, be sufficiently full to present all the errors upon which he relies.\nTrial on a Transcript from a Justice of the Peace.\u2014Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Edward F. Dunne, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1896.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 14, 1896.\nJas. C. Cooney, attorney for appellants.\nSimeon Armstrong, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0259-01",
  "first_page_order": 257,
  "last_page_order": 259
}